sino que los Gobiernos han actuado sobre las paridades monetarias, sobre las ayudas directas e indirectas a las empresas y a las entidades financieras, han introducido o restablecido maniobras de dumping social, han sucumbido a las peticiones de racionalización de los flujos migratorios y un largo etcétera de entorpecimientos que rematan siempre en un sálvese quién pueda que echa por tierra los logros de los últimos años de globalización.

Iniciado por Fraga II

DAVOS (Reuters) - El primer ministro británico, Gordon Brown, advirtió el viernes que el mundo no debe regresar a las políticas proteccionistas como respuesta a la crisis financiera global y pidió a los Gobiernos y a los empresarios una mayor coordinación para salir de los problemas.

COAG reparte en Madrid 1.000 kilos de tomates

La Coordinadora de Organizaciones Agrarias (COAG) celebró hoy una concentración de agricultores que repartió entre los vecinos de Madrid 1.000 kilos de tomates frente al Ministerio de Asuntos Exteriores, en la Plaza de la Provincia.

El acto sirvió a los agricultores para reclamar un control más efectivo en frontera de la entrada de hortalizas, así como para manifestar su rechazo a la liberación comercial de los intercambios con Europa pretendidos por Marruecos con la revisión del Acuerdo de Asociación suscrito en 2003 entre Rabat y Bruselas.

La coordinadora alegó que los mercados han registrado cotizaciones anormalmente bajas en el tomate y en el pimiento y aseguró que la distorsión en los precios está provocada por la entrada descontrolada de productos procedentes de terceros países.

Del mismo modo, COAG quiso recordar que un acuerdo negativo entre la UE y Marruecos supondría la pérdida del 10% del empleo en las zonas productoras, así como una posible reducción de la renta del sector en el mismo porcentaje.

Sebastián vuelve a ponerse español y defiende el consumo de productos nacionales
El ministro de Industria, Turismo y Comercio prevé salvar con esta fórmula 120.000 empleos

El ministro de Industria, Turismo y Comercio, Miguel Sebastián, continúa con sus teorías proteccionistas y ha vuelto a defender hoy en la sesión de control en el Congreso el consumo de productos españoles como medio para salvar 120.000 empleos.

"Es bueno consumir algo más productos españoles", ha argumentado Sebastián, quien ha negado que su propuesta tenga algo que ver "con el proteccionismo".

"Se trata de igualar las importaciones de consumo con otros países para salvar 120.000 empleos", ha defendido.

Buy American

Sebastián ha respondido así a la pregunta del diputado del PP Juan Manuel Moreno, quien le ha instado a comentar cuál es la postura del Ejecutivo frente a la cláusula buy American que el Gobierno de Estados Unidos ha introducido en su plan de estímulo a la economía.

A este respecto, Sebastián señaló que el Senado estadounidense ya ha aprobado una enmienda que exige "una aplicación coherente con los tratados de libre comercio y con los acuerdos en el marco de la Organización Mundial del Comercio (OMC)", una circunstancia, que, en su opinión, "es una buena noticia para los que defendemos el libre comercio".

El ministro indicó que el Gobierno llevará a cabo una campaña para mejorar la imagen de los productos españoles fuera de España y que, entre otros países, incluirá también a Estados Unidos.

Moreno criticó la opinión del ministro y señaló que el proteccionismo no crea más empleo y atenta contra el espíritu de la Unión Europea.

Además, afirmó que sus medidas "destilan un proteccionismo rancio y trasnochado" y añadió que lo que hay que intentar es que las familias puedan consumir, "y dejarse de grandes titulares y ocurrencias y ponerse a trabajar con rigor".

FERNANDO GONZÁLEZ LAXE
Proteccionismo y amor

FERNANDO GONZÁLEZ LAXE 21/02/2009





Todo el mundo tiene el derecho a defender lo suyo. Sin embargo, caer en un proteccionismo abusivo y continuar por dicha senda me parece un mal camino. La tentación proteccionista viene siendo una manifestación equivocada de un instinto de supervivencia y, a mi juicio, una mala interpretación y actuación de los derechos que todos tenemos a defender lo nuestro. Lo que muestran quienes apuestan por esa política es el temor a la competencia. Y esta última debemos interpretarla en todas sus acepciones, ya sea competencia internacional ya sea competencia nacional. De esta manera, quienes apuestan por un viraje al proteccionismo no hacen más que dejar entrever que desean ir contra las leyes de igualdad de oportunidades y a favor de la utilización de las instituciones para ampararse de sus malas prácticas.

Fórmulas como la defensa del 'made in Spain'
nos retrotraen a tiempos pasados

Ello no quiere decir que las instituciones públicas no deban y tengan que salir al paso, y ayudar tanto al relanzamiento económico como a paliar situaciones de sectores en crisis y a aminorar los efectos de incertidumbres o catástrofes. El Estado y las instituciones tienen obligación de actuar en dichos supuestos al tiempo que deben apuntalar los cimientos del sistema económico y del modelo escogido.

Pero en la actualidad llaman la atención algunas decisiones políticas, de corte proteccionista, como las referidas al apoyo a la industria automovilística (Francia), acero (EE UU) o empleo (Reino Unido). Son decisiones que, bajo el marco de un plan de estímulo económico global, están muy impregnadas de exclusivismo y eliminación de competencia; y, en consecuencia, debieran ser corregidas so pena de que abunden tentaciones de este tipo que poco contribuyen a facilitar una vuelta al crecimiento económico global.

Estas recientes cláusulas, tales como el buy american o el made in Spain, nos retrotraen a tiempos pasados en las que predominaba el compartimentalismo geográfico (autarquía), y hoy, en la actualidad, estamos en una sociedad global. Antaño, las barreras al comercio se postulaban desde la aplicación de aranceles o impuestos a la importación de productos extranjeros. Poco a poco hemos ido eliminando estos obstáculos para favorecer el comercio, contribuir al crecimiento, a la cooperación y a las posibilidades de desarrollo. Por eso, no alcanzo a entender la adopción de medidas proteccionistas como exaltación del patriotismo.

Menos mal que algunos economistas y países han reaccionado mostrando sus advertencias de tal peligro y afirmando que "una vuelta al proteccionismo hará aún más profunda la herida que sufre la economía mundial". Como se dice en los libros de texto, el proteccionismo es un juego de suma cero; porque si yo me protejo, el vecino hará lo mismo. De esta manera, enfocar las salidas a la crisis desde esta perspectiva no deja de ser el mismo error que el cometido años atrás cuando algunos países promulgaron normativas que elevaban los tipos medios de los aranceles. La respuesta fue que el resto de las naciones respondieron con impuestos sobre otros productos con lo que el comercio mundial quedó congelado y el volumen de intercambios se redujo sustancialmente.

Recientemente, el Banco Mundial estimaba que para este año el comercio va caer por vez primera en 27 años, retrocediendo entre un 6% y un 8%. Pueden comprender que la situación sería mucho peor si los gobiernos se dedicaran a blindar sus economías, restringiendo las capacidades de intercambio.

Sucede lo mismo si lo planteamos en términos autonómicos. Un viraje proteccionista (nacionalista, según algunos) no contribuiría a sostener de manera coherente y consistente un programa económico. Lo sensato es fundamentar el desarrollo económico y social en aquellos parámetros que en verdad son básicos y que además nos permitan apostar por visiones a largo plazo y no por actuaciones cortoplacistas.

Es obvio que una actitud proteccionista es una medida de corte defensiva, de inmediatez y tiene como objetivo solventar de manera populista un problema. Pero, sin duda alguna, no es solución política adecuada. Lo consistente es abordar los problemas en torno a la productividad, es decir, enfocándolos hacia la mejora de la eficiencia en los procesos productivos. Y para ello, la solución no es el proteccionismo, sino la capacidad de ampliar presencia y cuotas de mercado con nuevos productos y en distintos espacios geográficos.

Conclusión, resulta contraproducente apostar por el proteccionismo, aunque lo disfracemos de amor y de exaltación a la tierra.

Protectionism Will Hurt Export Driven Countries and Their Currencies
Friday, 20 February 2009 16:554 GMT


Written by Antonio Sousa, Chief Strategist



Global trade is expected to decline in 2009, the first time since 1982, according to the World Trade Organization. However, instead of minimizing the impacts of the ongoing deterioration of the global economy, politicians are making it worst by implementing “Buy American” protectionist measures that can easily trigger a trade war.


Global trade fell by more than two thirds during the great depression. Did Politicians learn anything from that experience?


Recently, U.S. lawmakers approved a massive 787 billion dollar stimulus plan. With this spending bill President Barack Obama hopes to “create more than 3.5 million jobs over the next two years” and “ignite spending by business and consumers alike”. However, a “Buy American” clause included in the stimulus plan by the House of Representatives may well trigger a wave of protectionism in other countries and damage the potential benefits of the stimulus plan. In fact, a similar protectionist measure was approved during the last Great Depression of the 1930s when an unemployment rate of more than 23 percent hard-pressed U.S. politicians to implement a series of protectionist bills which ended up having a catastrophic impact in the world economy. Indeed, the Dow Jones Industrial Average crash of 1929 (chart below) is still remembered as the most destructive stock market crash in the history of the United States. However, judging by the amount of years the Great Depression lasted, one can easily see that the stock market crash was not a one day sell-off and politicians clearly failed to reform the system and boost the economy. In fact, Jude Wanniski, an economist, later correlated the initially swings in the stock market with the prospects for passage of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Back then the economy started rebounding with the advent of the Second World War. However, this time around, I hope we don’t need to have a terrible war for politicians to wake up and start doing what is needed and not what is popular.

The Carry Trade Unwind May Be Over But High Yielding Currencies Can Fall Further



Over the past decade and until very recently, investors’ demand for higher yielding assets drove up exchange rates for many exports dependent economies such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada. However, over the past 18 months, investor’s appetite for high yielding currencies fell dramatically as shown by the table posted below which displays the 12-month percentage change of major currencies against the U.S. dollar. Now, the key question that many traders have is whether these commodity currencies are oversold or if we will see a sharp rebound. In my opinion, we are not close to the bottom yet, even though I admit that a sharp increase in exchange rate volatility makes it very difficult to make any **** of forecast. My arguments are very simple and I have been talking about them over the past 6 months. First, investor’s aversion towards risk-taking remains the main driver of price action in the currency market and I believe that will not change any time soon since we will see further losses on riskier assets like stocks and credit derivatives. Second, with the world economy slowing down (Real GDP Growth values posted below) is reasonable to think that the demand for commodities will also begin to dry up and export dependent countries like New Zealand, Australia and Canada could be very vulnerable going forward. Having said that, I expect more downward pressure in commodity currencies (AUD, NZD, and CAD) and I will be looking for opportunities to buy safe-haven currencies like the U.S. dollar, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc.

Las ayudas al sector automotor dividen a Europa por presunto proteccionismo




Siguiendo los pasos de España y Francia, Italia quedó este viernes en la mira de la Comisión Europea por su plan de ayuda al sector automotor, que despierta dudas por un posible regreso del proteccionismo al bloque a raíz de la crisis económica.

Bruselas indicó que tiene "algunas preocupaciones" respecto de la legalidad del plan de ayuda italiano, que podría ser "discriminatorio" y plantear problemas a las reglas comunitarias de "libre circulación de bienes", según el portavoz de la Comisión para cuestiones de Competencia, Jonathan Todd.

Ante esta situación, Bruselas envió este viernes una carta a las autoridades italianas para obtener detalles del plan en un plazo de cinco días hábiles.

El Gobierno italiano adoptó el pasado 6 de febrero una serie de medidas contra la crisis económica por un valor de 2.000 millones de euros, parte de los cuales deben fomentar la venta de automóviles.

A cambio, el Gobierno italiano exige al sector del automóvil que "se mantengan las fábricas en territorio italiano, se invierta en productos nuevos y se pague a los proveedores de componentes".

Tras la exigencia de la Comisión Europea, el ministro italiano de Asuntos Europeos, Andrea Romchi, salió a asegurar que el plan no era "discriminatorio en absoluto".

Sin embargo, Italia no hace más que seguir los pasos de España y Francia, ambos bajo la lupa de Bruselas por introducir en sus planes de ayuda al sector cláusulas consideradas proteccionistas o contrarias a la legislación europea.

Ni Madrid, ni París ni Roma quieren que las fábricas instaladas en su territorio sean deslocalizadas a otros países con menos costos laborales, una declaración de principios que ya ha motivado una polémica con la presidencia checa de la Unión Europea (UE).

De su lado, la comisaria europea de Competencia, Neelie Kroes, advirtió esta semana que no tolerará políticas proteccionistas e indicó el riesgo de que las mismas sean introducidas con la retórica de la "utilización del dinero nacional para proteger los empleos nacionales".

La cuestión no es nueva. El año pasado, un debate similar había agitado a Europa por las ayudas a los bancos afectados por la crisis financiera.

Francia, Alemania y Suecia habían criticado el dogmatismo de los "burócratas" de la Comisión Europea, forzando a Bruselas a mostrarse más flexible.

En el caso de la industria automotriz, las posiciones podrían endurecerse de cara a la cumbre extraordinaria de la UE del próximo 1 de maro, consagrada a la crisis económica.

Para República Checa, la cumbre será una oportunidad de denunciar todo intento de proteccionismo, una cruzada para la cual Praga espera contar con el apoyo de sus socios de Europa del Este, donde se han establecido muchas plantas deslocalizadas.

FACTBOX
Global crisis brings threat of protectionism
Fri Feb 20, 2009 3:52pm GMT

Reuters - The economic slowdown and recession that has followed the explosion of a financial crisis in September 2008 has encouraged many countries to support their economies or individual sectors.

The G7 industrial powers, fearing a 1930s-s**** resurgence of protectionism, ended crisis talks in Rome last weekend with a pledge to do all they could to combat recession without distorting free trade.

Policymakers are united in the fear protectionism could make the recession worse. Some countries argue big aid packages amount to unfair subsidies which may be illegal under international trade rules.

Here are details of some interventionist measures:

UNITED STATES - A $787 billion U.S. stimulus package, signed by President Barack Obama on Tuesday, has been criticised for its "Buy American" clause that says firms must use U.S. steel and other U.S.-made goods. A final provision also includes language that requires the U.S. to implement the provision consistent with its trade commitments.

-- A $17.4 billion lifeline to two Detroit carmakers was announced on Dec. 19. The bailout funds will come from the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief (TARP) program. GM will receive $13.4 billion and Chrysler $4 billion.

-- On Feb. 17, GM and Chrysler requested a further $22 billion in U.S. government loans as they submitted plans with the Obama administration on how they could restructure.

CANADA - Alarmed by Obama's stated desire to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement which groups the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, it fears it could lead to new tariff barriers. U.S. officials, in turn, have said Obama will seek to allay those fears.

-- Unveiled an aid package on Dec. 20 that provided C$4 billion ($3.28 billion) in emergency loans to the Canadian arms of General Motors and Chrysler to keep them operating.



EUROPEAN UNION


The European Union has imposed temporary antidumping duties of up to 25 percent on imports of Chinese-made steel wire rods, but will not to put extra tariffs on other Chinese steel products.

Brussels has also imposed antidumping duties of around 4 percent on imports of steel rods -- mainly used in construction -- from Moldova.

-- The European Commission said it would re-introduce export subsidies for butter, cheese, and whole and skimmed milk powder from Jan. 2009.

BRITAIN - Britain launched two bank rescue packages in the last six months to improve lending as the economy slips into its first recession since the early 1990s.

-- The government now owns a 70 percent stake in Royal Bank of Scotland and 43 percent of Lloyds Banking Group, which agreed to buy rival HBOS in September in a government-brokered deal. It had earlier nationalised two banks with heavy exposure to the country's ailing mortgage market, Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley.

Announced last month it would guarantee up to 2.3 billion pounds ($3.29 billion) of loans to the car industry including up to 1.3 billion pounds of auto industry loans from the European Investment Bank and a further 1 billion pounds in loans to back investments that are not eligible for support from the European lender.

FRANCE -- Pledged loans of 6 billion euros ($7.6 billion) to struggling car makers PSA Peugeot Citroen and Renault, (3 billion euros each) in return for them promising to "do everything" to avoid further job losses. The five-year, 6 percent interest rate loans are designed to fund investment into clean vehicle technologies.

GERMANY -- Unveiled a 1.5 billion euro aid package on Jan. 13 to form part of a 50 billion euro stimulus package of investments, tax relief and support for companies. The measures include incentives worth 2,500 euros for new car purchases.

ITALY -- Unveiled a $1.7 billion package for its car industry. Carmakers in turn have been told to maintain their plants in Italy and pay auto parts suppliers.

INDONESIA - Plans to order its nearly four million civil servants to use local products ranging from footwear to heavy machinery to help the economy weather the global financial crisis. Officials denied the measures would be protectionist. Indonesia, Southeast Asia's biggest economy, has experienced a slump in exports of key commodities such as tin and palm.

SOME OTHERS:

-- Argentina imposed licensing requirements on products such as auto parts, textiles, TVs, toys, shoes, and leather goods.

-- Ecuador raised tariffs on 940 products including butter, turkey, crackers, caramels, blenders, cell phones, eyeglasses, sailboats, building materials and transport equipment.

-- India raised tariffs on some imported steel products.

-- Indonesia limited the number of ports and airports serving as entry points for certain imports, such as electronics, garments, toys, footwear, and food and beverages.

-- Russia raised duties on imports of used cars to prop up its struggling domestic industry.

Protectionist 'virus' threatens EU car and tech stocks


By Simon Falush and Blaise Robinson

LONDON/PARIS (Reuters) - The prospect of massive state intervention to prop up ailing industries should leave investors on standby to cut positions in auto and technology stocks, which have most to lose from a potential trade war.

France's plans to support its two carmakers, Renault (RENA.PA) and PSA Peugeot Citroen (PEUP.PA), with 6 billion euros (5.3 billion pounds) in loans in return for a promise from the companies not to close their factories in France has heightened fears that a deepening recession will usher in protectionism.

It is companies like Peugeot -- for which the domestic market represents only a quarter of unit sales -- that have the most to lose if countries start to erect trade barriers.

"Given that France is one of the most successful and modern economies in Europe, hugely dependent on foreign trade and the profits made by its companies abroad, France will be a bigger loser than other countries if we get into a beggar-thy-neighbour spiral," said Charles Grant, director for the Centre for European Reform in London.

"This is hugely damaging. It will give others an excuse to feel that they can go a bit further in that direction."

France's CAC 40 .FCHI has fallen 13.6 percent so far this year, marginally outperforming Germany's DAX .GDAXI - down 15.6 percent, - but faring slightly worse than Britain's FTSE 100 .FTSE.

The French government's move to support its carmarkers prompted Swedish trade minister Ewa Bjorling to say this week that France has contracted a "protectionist virus".

And as other national economies also race to shore up decaying industries, the auto sector is the most likely to suffer, said Philippe Gijsels, senior equity strategist at Fortis Bank in Brussels.

"There is so much trouble in the sector that some countries might be tempted (into) a protectionist reflex," he said.

That urge won't have been stilled by the terms of the $787 billion (551.5 billion pounds) U.S. stimulus package, which require all public works projects it funds to use only U.S.-made iron and steel.

That proviso, as well as protectionist measures from developing countries, are leading investors to factor in trade wars as a significant risk.

"Normally you should slice production but (in a recession) everyone protects their own factories, everyone wants to keep their jobs at home. You start with subsidies and move to protection," Gijsels said.

The strategist said manufacturers in cyclical sectors with a high export components are the most vulnerable, meaning telecom firms, which are more domestically focused, would be less hurt than technology companies.

Tech stocks .SX8P have fallen 6.2 percent so far this year, while autos .SXAP are down 15 percent.


GERMANY AND FRANCE



In Germany, where about two thirds of the revenues from companies listed on the DAX index .GDAXI come from abroad, blue chips such as BASF BASF.PA, Bayer (BAYG.DE), Siemens (SIEGn.DE) or BMW (BMWG.DE) would also be hit.

France's Capgemini (CAPP.PA), Europe's largest computer consultancy which competes for IT budgets with U.S. giant Accenture (ACN.N), makes nearly 80 percent of its revenues outside France.

Other sectors such as big food groups are also vulnerable to an escalation in hostilities in global trade.

Danone (DANO.PA), whose brands include the Actimel yoghurt and Evian water, gets only 14 percent of its sales from France.

Such calculations mean that investors should keep a much closer eye on political considerations than they would usually.

"You are not looking only at economic fundamentals any more, but also at potential government action," said Ad van Tiggelen, senior strategist at ING Investment in The Hague.

In theory, the worse a company performed, the safer it might appear to be from a bondholder's perspective because it was likely to be propped up by state funds.

"You have to look for sectors that are very cheap... It becomes an issue of which government will do what rather than how well the company is managed," van Tiggelen said.

"We have signalled (protectionism) as a worrying trend which has a reasonable chance of becoming more serious."

However, in the context of the globalised economy, there are natural limits to the effectiveness of any measures to favour domestic industries.

"If a state in the U.S. is going to reinstall its energy grid infrastructure and must adhere to the Buy American policy, does it mean it can buy from ABB (ABBN.VX)?" said Dirk Enderlein at RCM Allianz Global investors in Frankfurt.

"It has a U.S.-based daughter company with U.S. employees and is run by an American CEO. It is however still a Switzerland-based company - so these things can cause issues very quickly."

Some U.S. 'security concerns' really protectionism: Day

David Akin, Canwest News Service Published: Friday, February 20, 2009

International Trade Minister Stockwell Day pauses while speaking to journalists on Parliament Hill in Ottawa Feb.11, 2009

OTTAWA -- Some American businesses are using security concerns as an excuse to try to keep Canadian goods out of the U.S. market, says Canada's trade minister.

Stockwell Day also said that while he is satisfied with U.S. President Barack Obama's commitment that a "Buy American"clause won't hurt Canada, he warned that the Conservative government must be vigilant against a protectionist U.S. Congress.

In an interview Friday with Canwest News Service and Global National, Mr. Day also said Canada is convinced that Mr. Obama will not seek to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), despite commitments he made during last year's presidential campaign. Still, Mr. Day said that Canada has agreed to work with the Obama administration to address any trade-related labour and environmental concerns between the two countries.

The trade relationship between the two countries -- the biggest in the world -- was a key focus of the meetings between Mr. Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper on Thursday in Ottawa.

"They got off to a very good start on laying out the first groundworks, some of the first rules to looking at how we do environmental regulations and environmental concerns," Mr. Day said.

A year ago, during the U.S. Democratic primaries, then-Senator Mr. Obama vowed, "I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA]." But earlier this week, Mr. Obama was praising the value of a trading relationship now worth about $1.5-billion a day to each country. That's more than the U.S. trades with Japan and Mexico combined.

"There was lots of speculation that President Mr. Obama wanted to do a wholesale renegotiation of NAFTA," Mr. Day said. "We understand now that that's not on and we think there's ways of accommodating the environmental concerns and the labour concerns."

But Mr. Day, who, as public safety minister from 2006 until last fall's election, was in charge of border security and the country's security forces, now says the ever-present emphasis in United States policy circles on security is taking its toll on that trading relationship.

"One of the things I'm beginning to learn in trade matters is one of the tricks of the trade. You can get an industry ... come forward to their government and say, ‘As a safety issue, or as a security issue, we need to demand this from Canadian products coming in.' Sometimes that can be a bona fide safety and security issue. A lot of times it's what we call a non-tariff barrier and they will use that," Mr. Day said.

Industry groups and manufacturers have long complained that, since 9/11 the border has "thickened", so much so that it has become a de facto protectionist barrier to Canadian goods.

"It's a pretty secure border," Mr. Day said, "and we're saying ... we'll maintain those security levels but we've got to focus on efficiency."

Mr. Obama and Mr. Harper agreed Thursday to use infrastructure money set aside in each country's economic stimulus package for border improvements.

Mr. Day said the Conservative government is "getting the message out that we don't consistently need to see security trumping efficiency or trumping prosperity all the time."

Mr. Day also said Canada is comfortable with new clauses in the U.S. economic stimulus legislation that mitigates some aspects of the "Buy American" rules. The new clauses say the U.S. will not violate obligations under international trade treaties like NAFTA.

But Mr. Day warned that, although Mr. Obama has given his commitment to protect U.S.-Canada trade from protectionist sentiment, Canada must still worry about the U.S. Congress.

"We are going to have to be vigilant, almost on a daily basis, with the various industry groups in the United States that might be pushing their representatives for some protectionist measures beyond what the original intent of what this act was. We'll just have to be aggressive and stay on top of it."

ERROR DE LA GRAN DEPRESIÓN
La crisis económica dispara el proteccionismo comercial en medio mundo






El Banco Mundial alerta en un reciente informe del aumento de medidas proteccionistas para restringir el comercio internacional y tratar así de proteger las industrias nacionales. En concreto, ya han comenzado a funcionar 47 nuevas barreras.







LD (M. Llamas) De nada parecen haber servido los compromisos adquiridos por el G-20 a favor del libre comercio y en contra del proteccionismo. Más bien, todo lo contrario. Diversos gobiernos, 17 de ellos pertenecientes al G-20, han puesto en marcha medidas destinadas a salvaguardar sus industrias nacionales de la competencia de otros países, dificultando el comercio internacional, tal y como avanzó Libertad Digital.

El Banco Mundial alerta en un reciente informe del auge que está viviendo el proteccionismo debido a la intensificación de la crisis económica a nivel mundial. En concreto, desde el estallido de la crisis, los gobiernos de muy diversos países han propuesto o implementado, al menos, 78 medidas en materia comercial. De éstas, 66 implican restricciones a la competencia internacional, de las que 47 ya han entrado en vigor.

El Banco Mundial no espera que este tipo de políticas conlleve efectos sustanciales, a la vista del tamaño de los mercados afectados y el grado de globalización existente todavía. Sin embargo, es una señal inequívoca de la peligrosa tendencia política que está provocando la crisis, según el documento. Con la economía global cayendo en una severa recesión, crece la presión política que demanda "proteger el empleo" nacional de la importación de productos foráneos.

"Sin embargo, si hay una lección que hay que prender de la experiencia de los años 30 (Gran Depresión) es que el aumento de las barreras comerciales amenaza con prolongar la contracción económica", alerta. Durante aquellos años, el Gobierno de EEUU levantó importantes barreras comerciales. Esta política se extendió también por Europa, agravando en gran medida la recesión a nivel mundial. El temor saltó tras la aprobación de una cláusula Buy America que restringe la compra de acero extranjero por parte del Gobierno de Barack Obama.



Más subsidios nacionales y aranceles


En la actualidad, países como Rusia, Argentina o Indonesia han aumentado los aranceles a la importación de determinados productos extranjeros, tales como televisores, coches o calzado. Otros, como los países miembros de la UE y EEUU han concedido importantes ayudas al sector de la automoción en un intento desesperado por evitar el cierre de fábricas y, como resultado, un mayor aumento del desempleo. Y ello, a pesar de que los océanos de coches sin vender se extienden por medio mundo ante el desplome de la demanda, tal y como avanzó LD.

Según el Banco Mundial, los subsidios a la industria de la automoción ascienden a cerca de 48.000 millones de dólares en los países desarrollados, a los que hay que sumar las ayudas directas concedidas por EEUU a los tres grandes de Detroit (General Motors, Chrysler y Ford). Además, los fabricantes de componentes para el automóvil recibirán hasta 5.000 millones de dólares de ayudas públicas, según anunció el jueves el Departamento del Tesoro de EEUU, una medida que fue aplaudida de forma inmediata por General Motors.

Francia defiende repatriar producción



Pero las ayudas directas no son las únicas señales de "preocupación". Así, el portavoz del Gobierno francés y secretario de Estado de Industria, Luc Chatel, reveló este viernes que el grupo automovilístico Renault volverá a producir en Francia un modelo que hasta ahora fabricaba en Eslovenia, una decisión que generará 400 empleos en la factoría de Flins, en la región parisina.

El grupo Renault va a anunciar la repatriación a la fábrica de Flins de la producción de un coche hasta ahora producido fuera de Francia. Será un aumento de la actividad para esta fábrica", declaró el secretario de Estado en la emisora Europe 1. En su opinión, Renault es "consciente" de que hoy hay que hacer un esfuerzo muy importante en materia de competitividad de la industria francesa del automóvil y eso se traduce en una "revisión de la organización de la producción".

El informe del Banco Mundial también destaca la concesión de nuevas subvenciones para favorecer el sector exportador en distintos países, más allá de las ingentes ayudas públicas que EEUU o la UE concede a su industria agrícola en detrimento de los países en vías de desarrollo, y que también se han extendido a otros productos como la mantequilla, el queso o la leche. China, Suecia, Argentina, Brasil o Italia también han aprobado nuevos subsidios, tanto directos como indirectos, para fomentar sus exportaciones.


Más ayudas agrícolas en los países ricos


En este sentido, el Ministerio de Medio Ambiente de España acaba de anunciar medidas compensatorias con ayudas al transporte al sector del plátano. El Gobierno central apuesta por la "reducción moderada" y progresiva de los aranceles de la Unión Europea (UE) a las exportaciones de plátano proveniente de Centroamérica, con el objetivo de proteger al sector platanero canario de forma que "permita la pervivencia de la actividad económica" del sector en las islas Canarias.

El Ejecutivo de José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero considera "inevitable una reducción del arancel" al plátano centroamericano en virtud de los acuerdos de libre comercio entre la UE y Centroamérica, según ha explicado el Gobierno en respuesta a una pregunta por escrito del diputado popular Gabriel Mato. Sin embargo, "el Gobierno de España viene defendiendo el tratamiento del plátano como producto sensible, a través de un arancel que proteja suficientemente la producción canaria de plátano", explica el documento.

En resumen, que lejos de apostar por una mayor liberalización comercial a nivel mundial, los gobiernos de medio mundo tienden a incrementar el proteccionismo o, al menos, se resisten a reducir las barreras comerciales y arancelarias vigentes hasta el momento.

NTREVISTA: M. DOWGIELEWICZ Secretario de Estado polaco para la UE
"Hay que evitar que la crisis provoque turbulencias políticas"



La crisis ha golpeado con especial fuerza al este de Europa. Pero no se puede meter a todas las economías de la zona en el mismo saco, puntualiza Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, de 37 años, secretario de Estado de Polonia para la UE. "Cada país es diferente", afirma en una entrevista. "Es importante que la Unión tenga una respuesta común, y después tener en cuenta las necesidades de cada uno de los países. No necesitamos un gran plan para Europa del Este


[como ha pedido, sin éxito, Hungría]. No puede haber una línea divisoria entre Occidente y el resto en la UE", advierte.

Lo cierto es que existen diferencias en el Este. Hungría, Letonia y Rumania han pedido ayuda al Fondo Monetario Internacional, mientras Bulgaria, Estonia y Lituania pueden acabar imitándoles. Otros países, como Polonia, República Checa, Eslovaquia y Eslovenia (estos dos últimos ya han adoptado el euro), aguantan mejor la crisis. Nadie está libre de las turbulencias. "Los países de la zona euro también pueden estar en una situación desesperada, con un déficit público disparado", afirma Dowgielewicz, que la semana pasada visitó Madrid para tratar algunos temas de la presidencia española de la Unión, que comenzará el 1 de enero de 2010.

Tres son los objetivos de Polonia en la cumbre europea que comienza hoy: "Es importante tomar medidas para mejorar la regulación del mercado financiero; otra cuestión clave es asegurarnos de que no destruimos el mercado interior, porque nos preocupa mucho el proteccionismo; por último, hay que garantizar la seguridad energética".

La amenaza del proteccionismo ha provocado diferencias en la UE. El secretario de Estado polaco opina que se han superado, en la medida en que, en la cumbre extraordinaria convocada a principios de marzo, "se lanzó un mensaje claro de unidad". "Ahora es necesario ejecutar lo acordado y para eso necesitamos una Comisión Europea fuerte", afirma. Puede haber, en su opinión, situaciones excepcionales para tiempos de crisis, pero en igualdad de condiciones para los socios. "Tenemos que estar seguros de que habrá un control adecuado y que las reglas sean respetadas por todos", añade. Pero de inmediato advierte: "Hay que evitar que esta crisis provoque turbulencias políticas en la UE; tendrían un efecto muy negativo y duradero".

Además de la crisis, otro tema clave es la estrategia en Afganistán. ¿Es necesario enviar más soldados? "Afganistán es una prueba de credibilidad muy importante para la UE, para la OTAN y para todo Occidente", responde sin dar más detalles. Dowgielewicz vería con buenos ojos que el próximo secretario general de la Alianza -el relevo es inminente- procediera de un país del este europeo. Uno de los nombres que se barajan para el cargo es el del ministro de Exteriores polaco, Radoslaw Sikorski. "Aún es pronto para decir cuál será la decisión de la Alianza", dice.

Respecto a la instalación en territorio polaco de parte del escudo antimisiles de EE UU, un proyecto acordado con George Bush y que el actual presidente, Barack Obama, aún no ha confirmado, el secretario de Estado cree que hay que esperar: "Primero hay que ver qué decide la Administración norteamericana".

Kirchner y Lula intentan dismular el proteccionismo en el comercio bilateral



hace 4 horas

SAO PAULO (AFP) — Los presidentes Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, de Brasil, y Cristina Kirchner, de Argentina, intentaron disimular este jueves el proteccionismo de sus países en el comercio bilateral, después de un encuentro para limar asperezas, multiplicadas en un contexto de retracción de demanda y presiones empresariales.

Al informar a la prensa de sus conversaciones, los mandatarios negaron que hubiera contradicción en reclamar el fin del proteccionismo de las naciones industrializadas, y en admitir que Argentina y Brasil aplican restricciones al intercambio bilateral.

Argentina impuso 'licencias no automáticas' para 1.200 productos importados, lo que representó para Brasil una barrera a sus exportaciones, y elevó la tensión bilateral entre los mayores socios del Mercosur.

Buenos Aires en tanto lamentó que Brasilia aplicase exigencias sanitarias para algunos productos agroindustriales y admitiese beneficios fiscales en los estados (provincias).

Kirchner dijo que las barreras comerciales pueden surgir de un aumento de impuestos o de licencias no automáticas, como hace Argentina, pero también a través de una desvalorización monetaria o de beneficios fiscales, como sucede en Brasil.

La diferencia de escala de producción generó también, en su opinión "un déficit estructural en la balanza comercial de Argentina con Brasil".

Con todo, la presidenta argentina se expresó optimista en "encontrar instrumentos, ideas y políticas" para resolver los problemas comerciales con Brasil.

Argentina tuvo en 2008 un déficit comercial con Brasil de 4.344 millones de dólares, pero en diciembre pasado el saldo negativo fue de sólo 64 millones de dólares, el nivel más bajo desde 2004, ante la fuerte caída de la demanda por la crisis.

El proteccionismo, según Lula, "es casi una religión, todo el mundo quiere defender sus empresas, sus empleos, su economía".

"Lo que debemos hacer es discutir precios justos para que un país no dañe al otro. Lo primero es tener una enorme proteción contra el dumping (precios depredatorios)", indicó.

"Tenemos que discutir más comercio. La lógica es hacer exactamente lo que hicimos hoy aquí, los empresarios argentinos y brasileños negociaron y buscaron caminos para comerciar más", añadió Lula en referencia a los empresarios presentes en un seminario que compartió con su invitada.

"Si equilibramos los precios, si establecemos cuotas (justas), haremos volver el comercio rápidamente a la normalidad", concluyó el presidente brasileño.

El encuentro presidencial se cumplió después de que los dos países acordaron disminuir sus roces y mantener su alianza estratégica dentro del Mercosur, durante una reunión diplomática en Buenos Aires la semana pasada.

Tras una reunión bilateral de más de una hora este viernes, Kirchner y Lula cerraron un seminario con cientos de empresarios brasileños y argentinos celebrado en la sede de la poderosa Federación de Industrias del Estado de Sao Paulo (Fiesp).

Los presidentes también discutieron las posiciones a llevar al G20, el grupo de países desarrolldos y emergentes que se reunirá el 1 y el 2 de abril en Londres.

"Si llegamos al G20 con una propuesta que pueda interesar a Argentina, a Brasil, a México, a India, a Francia y a otros países importantes del grupo, ya sería un avance extraordinario", dijo Lula.

Spectre of protectionism haunts emerging markets: IMF





WASHINGTON: With demand for exports falling, investment slumping, and cross-border lending drying up in a spreading economic crisis, emerging
market countries are increasingly concerned about protectionism, according to the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

The "spectre of trade and financial protectionism was a rising concern," it said in an analysis prepared for the Group of Twenty (G-20) industrialised and emerging market countries including India ahead of their April 2 summit in London.

"Notwithstanding commitments by G-20 countries not to resort to protectionist actions, there have been worrying slippages," the IMF analysis released Thursday said, noting many emerging market economies
are likely to face prolonged capital account pressures.

As the crisis becomes more prolonged, a growing number of emerging economies will find room for policy manoeuvre becoming increasingly limited. "Large-scale official support is likely to be needed from bilateral and multilateral sources," it said.

Referring to interventions in advanced economies, the Fund said lines were being blurred between public intervention to contain the impact of the financial crisis on troubled sectors and inappropriate production subsidies to industries whose long-term viability is questionable.

In emerging economies, monetary policy has to balance the need to support demand against the risk of accentuating capital outflows and undermining financial stability, the IMF said.

With constraints on the effectiveness of monetary policy, fiscal policy-including increased spending on infrastructure, job creation, and cash transfers to the vulnerable-needs to play a central role in supporting demand, while remaining consistent with medium-term sustainability, the IMF recommended.

Emerging economies should prepare, on a contingent basis, plans to address the growing risks of large-scale corporate failures, the IMF advised. Comprehensive mechanisms are needed to reduce the risk of systemic solvency problems, along with a strengthening of corporate workout frameworks.

Overall, risks are largest for emerging economies that rely on cross-border flows to finance current account deficits or to fund the activities of their financial or corporate sectors, the analysis said.

Foreign direct investment is set to slow significantly, given the fall in private equity assets, the lack of credit available to finance acquisitions, and sharply deteriorating growth prospects in emerging markets, it said.

Corporate and banking sector vulnerabilities are becoming mutually reinforcing in several emerging economies, the IMF noted. Relatively high requirements to roll over debt in the year ahead could rise further as some debt claims are accelerated due to breaches in original covenants.

With falling commodity prices and growth slowing sharply, defaults in the corporate sector are widely expected to rise, which would further strain bank balance sheets. In this environment, many banks are already curtailing credit growth, exacerbating the financing constraints for companies and businesses, IMF said.

Trade War with Mexico?

Mexico has put $2.4 billion in tariffs on American items after the Obama Administration stopped some Mexican long-haul trucks from entering the U.S.



The Obama Administration, by putting an end to a program that allowed some Mexican long-haul trucks into the U.S., has triggered a slew of retaliatory tariffs from Mexico. The White House seems to be looking for a way to resolve a dispute that it failed to avert, despite much forewarning. But it looks like it may be too late to avoid the $2.4 billion in tariffs altogether, experts say.

On Mar. 16, Mexico announced tariffs on about 90 items from 40 U.S. states, mostly on agricultural products. It was retaliation for Congress' decision last week to kill a program meant to defuse a dispute that has lasted more than 13 years over the right of U.S. and Mexican long-haul trucks to cross each other's border carrying goods. Mexico contends that the U.S. is violating the North American Free Trade Agreement, which provides for free movement by each member state's trucks. Congressional critics say Mexican trucks are unsafe and do not belong on U.S. roads.

The dispute comes at a time of rising concern that financially ailing countries will erect trade barriers in an effort to boost their individual economies at the expense of other nations. In a statement on Mar. 17, the World Bank cited a rise of protectionism since the members of the Group of 20 pledged in November not to raise trade walls against each other. The bank said 20 G-20 countries had implemented 47 trade-restrictive measures against other nations in the last four months.


Detroit Bailout Draws Criticism


China had banned Irish pork and Belgian chocolates, India had banned Chinese toys, and America, in the eyes of many, had violated the spirit of free trade by bailing out Detroit. "Leaders must not heed the siren song of protectionist fixes, whether for trade, stimulus packages, or bailouts," World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick said. "Economic isolationism can lead to a negative spiral of events such as those we saw in the 1930s, which made a bad situation much, much worse."

President Barack Obama campaigned on a platform of stricter enforcement of existing trade agreements. But in the worsening financial crisis, he has sharply toned down his language and has instead joined the chorus warning against protectionism. Still, U.S. Trade Representative-nominee Ron Kirk has said the Administration will look to strictly enforce U.S. trade agreements.

Now the White Houe has to keep the clash with Mexico from escalating. John Murphy, vice-president for international affairs at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, called the Mexican reprisal "a wake-up call" for the Administration. He said it demonstrates that, while the U.S. can focus on enforcement, it is vulnerable to economic retaliation. "We need to look at our side of the street as well," he said.

The Teamsters War





President Obama often campaigned as a trade warrior, and now he's getting his wish. Mexico announced yesterday that it will raise tariffs on 90 U.S. products, affecting some $2.4 billion in goods across 40 states. The move was retaliation for the recent decision by Congress, signed into law by Mr. Obama, to close the Southern U.S. border to Mexican trucks.

Proponents cloaked the decision in safety language, insisting that the Mexican trucks are a road hazard. However, a federal pilot program has shown that Mexican trucks actually have fewer violations than do American. The real hazard here is the new Administration's obeisance to the Teamsters, who endorsed Mr. Obama early in the 2008 Democratic primaries and demanded the trucking shutdown.

Before Mexico's retaliation, Teamsters spokesman Bret Caldwell told the Los Angeles Times, "we've already lost the trade war with Mexico . . . there is nothing more that Mexico could do to us that is worse than what they've already done." We're not sure the U.S. makers of (so far unspecified) farm and industrial products now facing Mexican tariffs will look at this protectionist outbreak so cheerfully.

By rejecting Mexican trucks, the Administration violated the North American Free Trade Agreement and picked a needless fight with a good neighbor. The White House scrambled yesterday in the wake of the Mexican announcement, saying it wants to work with Mexico to come up with a new trucking plan. But unilateral treaty violations aren't the way to get other nations to negotiate concessions.

President Obama may think 90 products is no big deal, but from such little tariff fights do larger trade wars sometimes develop. Especially in a time of economic hardship, populist and nationalist passions are dangerous and can be hard to control. Mark this episode as another early example in which Mr. Obama has refused to stand up to a powerful Democratic interest group, with damaging consequences.

Obama Protectionism Yields Mexican Tariffs, a NAFTA Challenge?





Mexico assigned tariffs to numerous U.S. exports in a public protest to the decision by U.S. President Obama and Democratic lawmakers to end a test program that allowed Mexican truckers access to U.S. roads. The move ultimately threatens NAFTA.

Just a year ago, before Senator Obama was certain to become President Obama, there was a notable rift in Ohio between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama. The issue was which Democratic candidate had the greater disdain for NAFTA. NPR's All Things Considered on February 26, 2008 summarized it well:

"Illinois Sen. Barack Obama wants to make something clear: When it comes to hating NAFTA — the North American Free Trade Agreement — he's way out in front of his rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

'Sen. Clinton, as part of the Clinton administration, supported NAFTA,' Obama says. 'In her book, she called it one of the administration's successes.'
The very suggestion that she might like NAFTA made Clinton furious.
'This is wrong," Clinton says. 'And every Democrat should be outraged. So shame on you, Barack Obama.'



Now that the two are on the same team, they are facing the real-life fallout of that mutual disdain.

The Mexican government assigned tariffs to 90 U.S. companies - in direct correlation to the decision by congressional Democrats and President Obama to cancel a pilot program that allowed Mexican trucks to transport goods throughout the U.S.

The Wall Street Journal reacted with an editorial, The Teamsters War, that drove home the total dollar impact nationwide:


President Obama often campaigned as a trade warrior, and now he's getting his wish. Mexico announced yesterday that it will raise tariffs on 90 U.S. products, affecting some $2.4 billion in goods across 40 states... By rejecting the Mexican trucks, the Administration violated the North American Free Trade Agreement and picked a needless fight with a good neighbor.



According to the foreign trade statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau, Mexico represents a fertile ground for U.S. exports - and one that has been growing significantly over the past 5 years. From 2004 through 2008, total U.S. exports to Mexico have grown by $41 billion - from $111 billion in 2004 to $152 billion in 2008.

While rising economic fears in the U.S. are fostering protectionist thinking and policies, the benefits of trading with Mexico - and of keeping the entirety of NAFTA intact - seem to far outweigh the concerns of the Teamsters Union, whose leaders cited safety for American drivers as the central issue behind the U.S. rejection of the test program.

The Teamsters Union is an organization that is not responsible for establishing highway safety. Those decisions are left to state legislatures.

Mexico strikes back in trade spat

THE Mexican government said that it would slap tariffs on 90 US industrial and agricultural products, in a trade dispute that underscored the difficulties facing President Barack Obama as he tries to assure business and global allies that he favours free trade.





Mexico said the tariffs were in retaliation for the cancellation of a pilot program allowing Mexican trucks to transport cargo throughout the U.S.

Mexican trucks on US highways have for years been primarily opposed by unions, despite long-standing agreements by the two countries to eventually allow their passage. Legislation killing the pilot program was included in a $US410 billion spending bill Mr. Obama signed last week.

The White House responded to the tariff threat with assurances that Mr Obama would work with Congress to create a new cross-border trucking program.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said U.S. and Mexican officials would work on legislation for a new plan "that will meet the legitimate concerns of Congress and our NAFTA commitments."

But Mexico's Economy Minister Gerardo Ruiz Mateos said Monday that the legislation signed by Mr. Obama was "wrong, protectionist, and clearly violates" the free trade treaty signed by the U.S. Mexico and Canada in 1994. Mr. Ruiz Mateos said the U.S. ban protected U.S. truckers while hurt Mexico's ability to compete.

The Mexican government wouldn't say exactly which products would be hit with tariffs but that the total value of the products was $US2.4 billion in 2007 and originated in 40 states. A detailed list was expected to be published this week.

The back-and-forth between the US and its third largest trading partner dramatised the pressure on Mr Obama as he prepared for an April meeting of G-20 leaders in London. Mr Obama ran for office as a trade sceptic, and urged the North American Free Trade Agreement, known as NAFTA, be renegotiated to better protect the interests of U.S. workers.

But fears are rising around the world that protectionism will erupt amid the global recession. Since he has taken office, Mr Obama has moved to burnish his trade credentials. Last week, he told top US CEOs that "making sure that we're not dropping back into protectionism" is a top priority.

Rising economic anxiety in the US is stoking a political backlash against free trade, raising worries that American workers and businesses aren't getting a fair shake in the global marketplace. Since taking control of Congress in 2007, Democrats have put the brakes on new free trade deals.

In recent weeks, Congress has pushed to include measures requiring that U.S.-made products get favourable treatment in projects funded with Mr. Obama's $US787 billion stimulus package.

The so-called Buy American provisions are creating worries abroad. During a visit to New York on Monday, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva warned against rising protectionism and said choking off trade threatens to hurt poor nations the most.

The International Brotherhood of Teamsters hailed the end of the road for the trucking program, and issued a sharp rebuke of Mexico's retaliatory action on Monday. "The right response from Mexico would be to make sure its drivers and trucks are safe enough to use our highways without endangering our drivers," said Teamsters president James Hoffa said.

A trans-border trucking program was intended to be created under NAFTA in 1993, and has been a point of tension in U.S.-Mexico economic relations for years.

The program was grounded by safety concerns and political objections during the Clinton administration and only began to take shape as a small-scale trial initiative two years ago. Under President George W. Bush, the Transportation Department put a demonstration project in motion in 2007, hoping it would prove that Mexican carriers can safely operate on US roads. Instead, the programme met fierce opposition.

Among other points of contention, Democratic critics have questioned whether Mexican authorities maintained adequate safety records on drivers, and whether the administration could ensure Mexican drivers spoke English and were adequately tested for drugs and alcohol.

A long-time critic of the program, Democrat Senator. Byron Dorgan said he would work with the Obama administration to address the safety concerns. "I have said all along that I have no problem with Mexican long-haul trucks being allowed into the United States if it can be done safely," he said.

The pilot program at the centre of the trade dispute involved 29 Mexican carriers and 100 trucks, far less than the 100 carriers and 500 to 1,000 trucks initially projected by the Transportation Department.

China's new protectionism an obstacle to recovery


Michael Sainsbury | March 21, 2009



IF the fuss over Chinalco's attempt to grab another $US19.5 billion chunk of Rio Tinto -- with a couple of board seats chucked in -- had become the deal brouhaha of the decade, it just took a back seat to a bigger and far thornier problem.

This week both sides of the Janus-like China Inc spilled out in lurid technicolour, throwing fresh doubts on the ability of the global economy to pull itself out of what is starting to look like a death dive to oblivion.

On Monday, China's Government struck many of the shackles off state owned enterprises and private companies that want to make investments in foreign companies, letting local authority fast-track deals.

That welcome news for Western companies starved of commercially priced capital, and eagerly eyeing China's juicy $US2trillion ($2.89trillion) kitty, only lasted days.

Late on Wednesday, when it knocked back Coca-Cola's $US2.4 billion bid for Huiyuan Juice Group, China joined the growing list of countries, including the US and Russia, that appear to be erecting often subtle trade barriers, increasing the threat of a new protectionism that threatens to scuttle any nascent signs of an end to the current economic nightmare.

The European Union Chamber of Commerce responded swiftly by asking China to publish its reasons for rejecting the deal.

With China already sweating on an answer from Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board about state-owned miner Chinalco's $US19.5 billion play for a bigger stake of Rio Tinto, the next phase of the country's "going out" looks to be anything but plain sailing.

Going out is a phrase used over the past three years in China to describe the next phase of the nation's economic development and engagement with the developed world.

The country's leaders have made efforts to shake the tag of the "world's factory" and move up the business value chain towards creating technology, innovation and global brands.

So far, the main deal has been the 2005 decision by Chinese technology group Lenovo to buy the personal computing division of IBM for $US1.25 billion.

The country has been smarting since the 2006 collapse of China National Offshore Oil's deal to buy US firm Unocal for $US18.5 billion in cash.

That's why the Rio deal is so important to China.

It is seen as a template for better engagement with the Western business world.

So far Australia has been China's favourite investment target with $US13.1 billion in deals already this year compared to $US1.4 billion for the same time last year. Britain is a distant second with $US4.5 billion of Chinese investment.

After all, the middle kingdom's steelmakers are keen to buy the quarry -- vertical integration has been a tried and true method to keep better control over prices.

But Rio is having none of that.

Wherever the truth lies -- and it is invariably somewhere in the middle -- the Rio deal is not just a lifesaver for the dual-listed miner, it is also a landmark opportunity for any Western mining company to exploit China's sea of untapped resources.

But the markets are increasingly nervous about the deal, with Rio's market value shrinking by 9 per cent this week.

FIRB and its master, Wayne Swan, are not being rushed into a decision and this week gave itself another 90 days to evaluate the proposal.

It's a possible lose-lose. If they knock it back they will be damned as xenophobic or protectionist. It would also cut off Rio's preferred solution to its debt problems.

Yet, many other cash-starved Western companies must be salivating about the advantages of dealing with Chinese companies that have been laid out like a sumptuous banquet via the Rio deal.

Along with the funding injection by Chinalco comes that rarest of things in these credit squeezed time -- a friendly, cashed up Chinese bank in EXIM -- country's last remaining "policy" bank -- ready to pony as much as $20 billion to help Rio's growth plans. Something the Goldman Sachs and UBSs won't be offering anytime soon.

But if a tsunami of mergers and acquisitions is the main game plan -- one which will certainly cheer the very same deal-starved investment bankers -- China this week did itself no favours by rejecting the Coke deal.

With such a opaque decision, it signalled that while it might demand an open playing field elsewhere, the one at home was still so covered in fog you wouldn't be able to find the ball, despite new anti-monopoly laws introduced last year to give the country its first framework for anti-trust cases.

The Australian Parliament this week began an inquiry into investment laws, as opposition to the Chinalco deal began to swell.

Barnaby Joyce, the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, said Chinese rejection of the Coke bid may give some Australians confidence to voice their concern about the Chinalco and MinMetals' proposed investments in Australia's sovereign wealth.

"I have had literally hundreds and hundreds of emails from Australians who are worried about what this will mean for our future," Senator Joyce told The Weekend Australian.

"This rejection of the Coca-Cola bid by the Chinese shows that the people in China have the same concerns that we have.

"China has money in the bank to invest, but, if we let them buy our mines, it puts us in a weaker negotiating position when we are trying to get the best deal for the sale of our minerals."

But China's Government researchers played down the similarities with the Chinalco-Rio deal.

"Coca Cola and Huiyuan deal is completely different from Chinalco and Rio Tinto deal; it is completely irrelevant," Dr Mei Xinyu, a researcher at China's Ministry of Commerce said.

"We don't have prejudice against Coca-Cola, and the policy is consistent. What we want for Chinese company (investing in overseas) is also the same treatment. We are not asking for mercy beyond law."

And here is the kicker.

"Another point is that China is abundant with capital, but (some) foreign countries need investment," Mei said.

The Ministry of Commerce published a statement draft in January defining markets first by a demand-based analysis, then, if needed, a secondary supply-based analysis, and more complex deals using by a method known as "Small but Significant Not-transitory Increase in Price," or SSNIP.

"The first two methods are more subjective, mainly used in simple cases that require only qualitative analysis," influential Chinese business magazine Caijing wrote.

The SSNIP is used internationally as an objective measure of a company's market.

A source close to the situation who asked to remain anonymous told Caijing that complicated as the Coca-Cola case was, the Ministry of Commerce did not use SSNIP measurements to define the two companies' markets.

Frank Tudor, chairman of the Australia-China Business Council, said there are many factors in play and the anti-monopoly provision was the biggest one.

"There's a real danger we lose objectivity and a real danger we become xenophobic," he warns.

The stark danger is that China may be joining the wave of protectionism sweeping the globe that could mirror errors made during the 1930s that helped prolonged the Great Depression.

But Australia wants more reciprocity for ticking of deals like Rio's, a point Cabinet ministers Stephen Smith and Simon Crean will press home in China next week.

"When we're talking about bilateral investment there a number of clear principles that need to be in place, ideally through an investment framework that could be incorporated in the free trade agreement," Tudor says.

"It's particularly important for us because many of our resource companies and resource developments do depend on finance, do depend on offtake contracts and employment does ride on those."

Still, despite the knock-back Coca-Cola has not changed its plans to pump $US2 billion into its China business, includes marketing and new distribution and plant infrastructure, over the next three years. Its main rival PepsiCo is also planning a $1 billion investment splurge in China.

China Denies Protectionism In Coca-Cola Ruling


BEIJING -(Dow Jones)- China dismissed criticism that its rejection of Coca- Cola Co.'s (KO) bid for China Huiyuan Juice Group Ltd. (1886.HK) was a protectionist move, saying Thursday the decision was consistent with its antimonopoly law and the country remains open to foreign investment.

The Ministry of Commerce said Wednesday it had ruled against Coca-Cola's purchase of Huiyuan for US$2.4 billion because the deal would unduly restrict competition.

The ruling, the first big test of China's antimonopoly law that took effect in August, could discourage foreign investment and undermine Beijing's calls against protectionism in global markets.

The Foreign Ministry and the Commerce Ministry said Thursday the decision on Coca-Cola's bid was "objective" and intended to maintain "fair competition" in the market.

Commerce Ministry spokesman Yao Jian said the ruling was made without outside interference, and protects consumers.

"China, as always, proposes to actively attract foreign investment...and will create good conditions for investors from abroad to start operations in China," Yao said, in a faxed response to questions about the ruling.

Echoing Yao's comments, Foreign Ministry spokesman Qin Gang said during a regular press briefing the ruling "isn't the same as trade and investment protectionism."

"We will continue our policy of keeping our markets open and welcoming foreign investment," Qin said, reiterating China opposes protectionism.

Coca-Cola's communications director for the Pacific region, Kenth Kaerhoeg, said the beverage giant made a "very comprehensive submission" to the Ministry of Commerce expressing its view that "there were no significant competition issues," and proposed solutions to issues raised by the ministry.

"Despite all this the Ministry of Commerce has decided not to approve our application," said Kaerhoeg.

Beijing's insistence that it objects to protectionism comes before Group of 20 leaders meet in London early next month. Despite rhetoric from world leaders that protectionism would hurt trade and worsen the tottering world economy, trade tensions have risen and could hurt China particularly hard.

Earlier this year, India banned imports of toys from China for six months, and Beijing has also said it will file a case at the World Trade Organization against a plan by the U.S. to bar Chinese poultry imports.

"During the current global economic downturn, it is in the best interests of the U.S. and Chinese economies for both governments to ensure a welcome environment for foreign trade and investment," the American Chamber of Commerce in China said Thursday.

The U.S.-China Business Council urged China to disclose details of its ruling, saying transparency is important to investor confidence.

Chinese companies have been investing abroad during the financial crisis, and analysts say Wednesday's ruling could hurt such investments.

In a sign of the potential hurdles Chinese firms face in their overseas push, Australia said Monday it has extended a review of Aluminum Corp. of China's planned US$19.5 billion investment in Rio Tinto Ltd.

Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. (FMG.AU) said Thursday Australia's Foreign Investment Review Board has extended the period of its review into Hunan Valin Iron and Steel Ltd.'s planned investment in the group by 30 days.

OECD Warns Protectionism Will Worsen Financial Crisis
By Lisa Schlein

Geneva
19 March 2009


A new report by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the OECD, warns protectionism will worsen the global financial crisis. The report analyzes six emerging countries and shows how their economies boomed after they opened their markets to world trade. The OECD counsels wealthy countries to learn from this experience.

The OECD says trade protectionism is not the way to tackle the current economic crisis. The report says resisting protectionist measures may not be the politically correct thing to do, but it is the economically correct thing to do to get the world out of its financial doldrums.

Director of OECD Trade and Agriculture, Ken Ash, says countries that have liberalized various sectors the most have performed the best in economic terms.

"Protectionism is absolutely the wrong thing to do. So, our advice to OECD countries is do not go there," Ash said. "Do not fall back…It does not make sense to close your markets. When governments do that…they impose costs on households, they impose costs on businesses, they choke off markets and they get the exact opposite effect of what they want. What they want they will get, if they open markets further."

The report says the wealthy industrialized countries would be wise to follow the lead of six emerging markets that have done well since opening up to world trade.

The report shows Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and South Africa have significantly reduced their border protection and have been expanding their exports much faster than the leading developed countries.

Acting Head of the OECD's Development Division in Trade and Agriculture, Douglas Lippoldt, says openness has served the global economy well and all countries should keep their markets open to improve their economic prospects.

"Protectionism inhibits, it prevents us from realizing our economic potential. It is a distortion and it leads to inefficiencies and we all are losers when it is employed...Efforts to revive stalled trade reforms would help the major emerging economies to build on the progress already achieved over the past two decades," Lippoldt said. "And, importantly to emerge from the current economic crisis with stronger trade positions and more robust performance than otherwise would have been possible. That is, if we tackle the distortions now, we have a better chance of being in better shape as we exit from this economic downturn."

The report urges the six emerging economies to enact, what it calls, a second generation of reforms. It says they will emerge stronger from the crisis if they reduce remaining import tariff barriers, reform domestic regulations that impede trade and further open up their services sectors.

The OECD economists say reviving stalled trade reforms would help the major emerging economies build on the progress they have achieved over the past two decades. It would strengthen the economies of other countries as well.

While the economic crisis did not have its origin in trade, the OECD notes trade can be part of the solution.